• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teens in Asia dominate global test; US stagnant

trfjr said:
.

Teens in Asia dominate global test; US stagnant

And we spend more per child on education then any other country. in 2011 we spent $7,743 per child two times as much as the Asian countries do
U.S. Education Spending & Student Performance vs. The World Infographic | MAT@USC | USC Rossier Online

so I don't want to hear any solutions that is about wasting more money on a broken system

First and for most we need to get rid of the teachers unions they are more concerned about stuffing their pockets then educating our children

second we need to pay teachers based on performance and not on tenure like they do every where else in the private sector

third we need to implement school choice let the schools compete for students and when there is competition there is improvement
Click to expand...


Agreed, after adopting all these things it should be easy to get a fine development in the sector of childcare and teens.
 
StringBean said:
Man some people are so ignorant of market principles it amazes me.

The market determines what is a job's value.

If there were only 32 people in the world qualified to be a firefighter, then they would make $10 million a year.

If there were thousands of people qualified to be an nfl quarterback, they would make $50 thousand a year.

However, the situation is reversed.

Value is a function of scarcity. Gold has value because there is only so much of it, and people want it.

Firefighters, for all the good they do to society, are not scarce. Many people can do that job and are willing to do that job.

NFL quarterbacks, who play a child's game in your eyes, require specific physical and mental skills to do their job, honed over years of playing the game.

If anyone could do it, these guys wouldn't get paid millions. The reality is, you couldn't do it, so rather than simply acknowledge that they bring in tens of millions of dollars to the organization they work for, more than justifying their huge paychecks, you distort the basic fundamentals of the situation and spread economic ignorance.

It has nothing to do with what society values. After all, we have plenty of firefighters, precisely because they get paid what they deserve.
Click to expand...

Someone took a freshman economics class. Except that this isn't how life really works. Tons of people could do most jobs. The fact is people you are probably 75% right, and then 25% utterly wrong. Anyone can play the game of football. In fact, millions do. The best players get to be pro players because they are the best, not because they can do things someone else can't - they just do it a bit better. That bit better is the difference between no money and millions of dollars. That money they get paid could go into far more projects to better humanity, but it is selfishly given to a scarce few people.

Do you think I deserve the money I make as a railroader? My job is easy as ****. ANYBODY, and I mean ANYBODY could do it. It is literally easier than being a dishwasher at a restaurant. But I get paid over twice what a dishwasher makes. For what? Sitting on my ass 9 hours a day and doing 3 hours of menial work? The market is based on who has the money. I haul millions of dollars of freight so I get paid more. Not because my job is harder or I am more qualified. I got the job because I know somebody, not because of how good my resume looks, and that sums up America.
 
US Conservative said:
They are the best because they can do things others can't. Thats what that means. :)
Click to expand...

Depending on how you look at it only. Anyone can still catch a ball, throw a ball, make a block, run up the gut, etc. You can put any decent team in a jersey and people are going to go watch the game. Why don't high school players get paid? Why not college players? Answer that and you may see the point I am making because you know they generate money as well, but the money they generate goes on to finance far more important things than the price tags on their shoes.
 
hjl1991 said:
Depending on how you look at it only. Anyone can still catch a ball, throw a ball, make a block, run up the gut, etc. You can put any decent team in a jersey and people are going to go watch the game. Why don't high school players get paid? Why not college players? Answer that and you may see the point I am making because you know they generate money as well, but the money they generate goes on to finance far more important things than the price tags on their shoes.
Click to expand...

best
best/Submit
adjective
1.
of the most excellent, effective, or desirable type or quality.
"the best pitcher in the league"
synonyms: finest, greatest, top, foremost, leading, preeminent, premier, prime, first, chief, principal, supreme, of the highest quality, superlative, par excellence, unrivaled, second to none, without equal, nonpareil, unsurpassed, peerless, matchless, unparalleled, unbeaten, unbeatable, optimum, optimal, ultimate, incomparable, ideal, perfect; More
antonyms: worst
most enjoyable.
"some of the best times of my life"
most appropriate, advantageous, or well advised.
"do whatever you think best"
synonyms: most advantageous, most useful, most suitable, most fitting, most appropriate; More
adverb
1.
superlative of well1.
to the highest degree; most.
adverb: best
"the one we liked best"
synonyms: most, to the highest/greatest degree More
antonyms: least
most excellently or effectively.
"the best-dressed man in Hollywood"
synonyms: to the highest standard, in the best way More
antonyms: worst
most suitably, appropriately, or usefully.
"this is best done at home"
synonyms: most advantageously, most usefully, most suitably, most fittingly, most appropriately; More
noun
noun: best
1.
that which is the most excellent, outstanding, or desirable.
"buy the best you can afford"
synonyms: finest, choicest, top, cream, choice, prime, elite, crème de la crème, flower, jewel in the crown, nonpareil; More
Click to expand...


"Anyone" is not the best. The best means what it means. High school and college players dont get paid because they are there (theoretically) for scholastics and not sports-in fact can you tell me of other high school kids or college kids who are paid for their school activities? Its a silly appeal-they are there to learn.

Generation of money does is not the end all be all (unless you are a machine?)-and being the best does not mean you earn the most (see definition above).

I feel you-but please know that this is not simply about what people earn. Just know that what people can do (the best) matters the most to those who pay (in any financial system).

Please. Know that those who do the best (for any reason) are going to get paid the most.
 
Last edited:
trfjr said:
.

Teens in Asia dominate global test; US stagnant

And we spend more per child on education then any other country. in 2011 we spent $7,743 per child two times as much as the Asian countries do
U.S. Education Spending & Student Performance vs. The World Infographic | MAT@USC | USC Rossier Online

so I don't want to hear any solutions that is about wasting more money on a broken system

First and for most we need to get rid of the teachers unions they are more concerned about stuffing their pockets then educating our children

second we need to pay teachers based on performance and not on tenure like they do every where else in the private sector

third we need to implement school choice let the schools compete for students and when there is competition there is improvement
Click to expand...

I do not think that wages of the teachers are an issue or their unions. If you want good education and safeguards for child safety you need well trained and well paid professionals to do that job.

Second it is not fair or decent to pay teachers based on performance, it is even foolish and idiotic to do it in that manner. Good teachers will leave inner city and under performing schools with a lot of literacy problems and low desire for eduction for jobs that pay a lot more in "good schools".

Third we need to keep children in their area where they grew up if at all possible, competing for students is not the way forward IMHO.

And the kids in South Korea may be doing well in academic tests, but almost 10% of children there contemplate killing themselves due to the extreme pressure put on them for academic success. South Korea is the suicide capital of the world.

Kids in the US have a lot of other things to keep them interested and many grow up to be reasonably well balanced and happy adults instead of over achieving suicidal mental cases like Asian countries seem to suffer from.
 
A quick point about the compensation debate that has arisen in this thread regarding disproportionately higher compensation for let's say athletes or musicians, vs. firefighters and teachers:

The empirical evidence suggests that if one can scale the ability to sell one's product/service at little additional effort (separate from the supply-demand of individuals in given professions), one can reap far higher compensation. Consider Miley Cyrus who is so often cited in the media today. It takes little additional effort on her part to sell let's say 1,000,000 CDs vs. 10,000 CDs thanks to technology. If she were merely performing before audiences and technology did not exist to distribute performances (over the media or CDs, etc.), then there would be greater limits on her compensation. Instead, courtesy of scalability, she has the ability to approach the limits of supplying her work to all who are willing and able to buy it.

In contrast, there might be a firefighter who has unusual ability to save people from difficult situations. Yet he/she would be confronted by physical barriers that would preclude the number of situations in which he/she could be involved. Various municipalities might well be willing and able to pay him for his/her services, but there would be no physical way he/she supply his/her services to meet that demand (unlike Ms. Cyrus). Therefore, if his/her compensation directly tied to each rescue, the compensation would still wind up limited. Not surprisingly, firefighter compensation is not royalty based (unlike that for Ms. Cyrus). The compensation structure reflects the reality.

Needless to say, there are other variables that can also amplify compensation gaps e.g., peer influence. Many teams or recording labels offer compensation based on the going rate of other star professionals and that tends to have an escalator effect on compensation.
 
Last edited:
US Conservative said:
"Anyone" is not the best. The best means what it means. High school and college players dont get paid because they are there (theoretically) for scholastics and not sports-in fact can you tell me of other high school kids or college kids who are paid for their school activities? Its a silly appeal-they are there to learn.

Generation of money does is not the end all be all (unless you are a machine?)-and being the best does not mean you earn the most (see definition above).

I feel you-but please know that this is not simply about what people earn. Just know that what people can do (the best) matters the most to those who pay (in any financial system).

Please. Know that those who do the best (for any reason) are going to get paid the most.
Click to expand...

If you learn anything in your life, please know that those who do the best in life know somebody that got them there. This country is vastly about who you know. As you said, high school players don't get paid because they are there for the scholastics. I am all for that. I was a state placing wrestler in PA, and I didn't get paid a dime through the decade I spent in a room hours a day kicking my own butt.

But that's all that I am saying, then shouldn't playing football be about the love of the game? Shouldn't being on a pro team just be a joy in itself that players don't have to work a menial job? Isn't it really for the fans?

Robert Goodell could institute a salary cap today and players would stop getting paid the enormous money they are receiving today. Then you'd see players get all pissy for the first year or so, but afterwards you'd see players playing because they love the game and going to teams they love because of the coaching and teams they loved growing up, not just the money.
 
hjl1991 said:
If you learn anything in your life, please know that those who do the best in life know somebody that got them there. This country is vastly about who you know. As you said, high school players don't get paid because they are there for the scholastics. I am all for that. I was a state placing wrestler in PA, and I didn't get paid a dime through the decade I spent in a room hours a day kicking my own butt.
Click to expand...

From the economic standpoint, you're raising a variant of the issue of information asymmetries. This is one of the limitations that preclude perfect/wholly efficient markets. Who one knows can be a key determinant whether he/she can match his/her skills with the kind of opportunity that would maximize his/her benefits. Such asymmetries can affect opportunities (e.g., to supply services where demand would exist), prices (suppliers or customers that better understand value of a good/service can capture a larger share of profits), efficiency (mismatches that result), etc.
 
donsutherland1 said:
From the economic standpoint, you're raising a variant of the issue of information asymmetries. This is one of the limitations that preclude perfect/wholly efficient markets. Who one knows can be a key determinant whether he/she can match his/her skills with the kind of opportunity that would maximize his/her benefits. Such asymmetries can affect opportunities (e.g., to supply services where demand would exist), prices (suppliers or customers that better understand value of a good/service can capture a larger share of profits), efficiency (mismatches that result), etc.
Click to expand...

But you see then that there is no possible way for a "perfect" market to ever exist. We are trying to create something that can't happen. If I am a boss, and I have a job opening, I'm going to hire the best guy... unless my son's friend needs a job really bad.

It's human nature.
 
hjl1991 said:
But you see then that there is no possible way for a "perfect" market to ever exist. We are trying to create something that can't happen. If I am a boss, and I have a job opening, I'm going to hire the best guy... unless my son's friend needs a job really bad.

It's human nature.
Click to expand...
I worked for a well known company where nepotism is encouraged. I was told by my manager that I was being let go because his friend from High School needed a job and he owed him a favor. If your job stood in the way of a supervisors kid that needed a job for the summer, you're gone.
 
hjl1991 said:
But you see then that there is no possible way for a "perfect" market to ever exist. We are trying to create something that can't happen. If I am a boss, and I have a job opening, I'm going to hire the best guy... unless my son's friend needs a job really bad.

It's human nature.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The concept of perfect markets is a theoretical one. Some industries might approach the characteristics one might expect to see in such markets based on economic theory, but they fall short e.g., information is not and cannot be perfect in the fullest sense of the term (data itself and access to the data among market participants), participants make decisions that are not wholly objective (your example of human nature/hiring your son's friend).
 
HenryChinaski said:
Again, What we as a society place value on is seriously skewed.
Click to expand...

By your measure, an apple would cost more than diamond.

What you fail to realize is that an NFL quarterback doesn't get paid. He brings in far more money than he is paid, so he's essentially free.
 
hjl1991 said:
If you learn anything in your life, please know that those who do the best in life know somebody that got them there. This country is vastly about who you know. As you said, high school players don't get paid because they are there for the scholastics. I am all for that. I was a state placing wrestler in PA, and I didn't get paid a dime through the decade I spent in a room hours a day kicking my own butt.

But that's all that I am saying, then shouldn't playing football be about the love of the game? Shouldn't being on a pro team just be a joy in itself that players don't have to work a menial job? Isn't it really for the fans?

Robert Goodell could institute a salary cap today and players would stop getting paid the enormous money they are receiving today. Then you'd see players get all pissy for the first year or so, but afterwards you'd see players playing because they love the game and going to teams they love because of the coaching and teams they loved growing up, not just the money.
Click to expand...

Your fatalistic view on success is very clear-the irony is the US is one of the few places on earth where anyone can succeed-its true and the people hopping over border walls and floating over know this. I have found that some liberals are so conditioned to think the US is a bad place (almost a pavlovian response) that they forget how much better this place is.

On to professional sports-its a business-it exists to entertain and therefor make money for the organisation. The best players are generally more entertaining-and clearly the fans support it because they bear the costs. People like watching the best of the best. Im curious if you extend your logic to all entertainers.
 
HenryChinaski said:
I worked for a well known company where nepotism is encouraged. I was told by my manager that I was being let go because his friend from High School needed a job and he owed him a favor. If your job stood in the way of a supervisors kid that needed a job for the summer, you're gone.
Click to expand...

Sounds like he was a crap boss. At some point, most business owners will overlook their personal bias, especially if its hitting them in the pocket book.
 
US Conservative said:
Your fatalistic view on success is very clear-the irony is the US is one of the few places on earth where anyone can succeed-its true and the people hopping over border walls and floating over know this. I have found that some liberals are so conditioned to think the US is a bad place (almost a pavlovian response) that they forget how much better this place is.

On to professional sports-its a business-it exists to entertain and therefor make money for the organisation. The best players are generally more entertaining-and clearly the fans support it because they bear the costs. People like watching the best of the best. Im curious if you extend your logic to all entertainers.
Click to expand...

Anyone can succeed, but you know damn well that if you are friends with a guy whose dad owns a company, you can skip the line of applicants and settle in in a decent position, and it happens all the time in every place I have ever worked. I have even benefited from how the game works. So this idea that anyone can come and succeed is just plain flawed. Some people are just plain going to get chewed up and spit on, and some people are going to have a cake walk. I feel bad for people that get chewed up. You seem to not be able to recognize their existence.

As for extending my logic to all entertainers... yes, absolutely. The entertainment industry is completely overpaid. There is no reason some guy should get paid millions purely because he is funny, or a good singer. All of that still comes down to who you know. There is plenty of talent, and only a select few get an opportunity - even if they aren't necessarily the best.
 
hjl1991 said:
Anyone can succeed, but you know damn well that if you are friends with a guy whose dad owns a company, you can skip the line of applicants and settle in in a decent position, and it happens all the time in every place I have ever worked. I have even benefited from how the game works. So this idea that anyone can come and succeed is just plain flawed. Some people are just plain going to get chewed up and spit on, and some people are going to have a cake walk. I feel bad for people that get chewed up. You seem to not be able to recognize their existence.

As for extending my logic to all entertainers... yes, absolutely. The entertainment industry is completely overpaid. There is no reason some guy should get paid millions purely because he is funny, or a good singer. All of that still comes down to who you know. There is plenty of talent, and only a select few get an opportunity - even if they aren't necessarily the best.
Click to expand...

So heres my question-who are you to decide what others should be paid?
 
US Conservative said:
So heres my question-who are you to decide what others should be paid?
Click to expand...
If people without special skills expect to get paid what they feel they're worth then there will be a great deal more automation coming in the near future.
 
Grant said:
If people without special skills expect to get paid what they feel they're worth then there will be a great deal more automation coming in the near future.
Click to expand...

Exactly-they get their bluff called every time. Its seen in these entry level mcdonaldsdonalds employees who demand more but offer nothing of value.
 
US Conservative said:
Exactly-they get their bluff called every time. Its seen in these entry level mcdonaldsdonalds employees who demand more but offer nothing of value.
Click to expand...

A recording could ask if they want fries with that and flipping burgers would be one of the easier tasks to automate. Asking for more than value then is there will ruin it for those who work at the Arches in order to further their education or supplement their income. It is one of the better starting positions in the work force.
 
HenryChinaski said:
I worked for a well known company where nepotism is encouraged. I was told by my manager that I was being let go because his friend from High School needed a job and he owed him a favor. If your job stood in the way of a supervisors kid that needed a job for the summer, you're gone.
Click to expand...

If that is their policy the company is doomed to fail.
 
Grant said:
A recording could ask if they want fries with that and flipping burgers would be one of the easier tasks to automate. Asking for more than value then is there will ruin it for those who work at the Arches in order to further their education or supplement their income. It is one of the better starting positions in the work force.
Click to expand...

A recording does ask! Out here at least many drive throughs have a pre-recorded greeting when you pull up. A touch screen would work just as well-lets face it these places can't seen to handel even a basic order with humans behind the counter as it is.

When we subsidize entry level jobs, and the mindset that ends up there-we will get more of it.
 
US Conservative said:
So heres my question-who are you to decide what others should be paid?
Click to expand...

I'm not deciding what anyone gets paid. I'm just saying people deserve to be able to pay for an apartment, utilities, food, insurance, and set aside some money on a minimum wage job. Who am I to decide what people get paid? Who are you to determine people don't deserve to get paid? How can we pay someone thousands of times the current minimum wage but then scoff at people who can't find a job with a decent wage? It is unacceptable in today's world. We have ten times the wealth our fathers had (and most of it our fathers made, not us), yet we still refuse to cover basic needs across the board.
 
hjl1991 said:
I'm not deciding what anyone gets paid. I'm just saying people deserve to be able to pay for an apartment, utilities, food, insurance, and set aside some money on a minimum wage job. Who am I to decide what people get paid? Who are you to determine people don't deserve to get paid? How can we pay someone thousands of times the current minimum wage but then scoff at people who can't find a job with a decent wage? It is unacceptable in today's world. We have ten times the wealth our fathers had (and most of it our fathers made, not us), yet we still refuse to cover basic needs across the board.
Click to expand...

Why do they deserve this? How can anyone decide what people deserve?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom